Obama Must Renege on Tax Promise if We Want Universal Health Care

By the end of 2009 I predict President Barack Obama will sign something that will be touted as health care reform. Whether that something will be classified as universal health care, is yet to be determined.

With a bipartisan coalition of three former Senate majority leaders making their way to Capitol Hill pitching Congress to pass health care legislation, there is unprecedented momentum in the air.

Bob Dole, who led the opposition against former President Bill Clinton's failed health care plan, is now advocating to get something passed this year. Howard Baker compared the current health care debate to the seminal moment when Congress passed civil rights legislation in the 1960s. And Tom Daschle urged that the bill have bipartisan support.

But questions linger.

Can there be a public plan that competes directly with the existing private companies? If so, does that create a climate of unfair competition? Where members of Congress come down on these questions depend on their political philosophy be it liberal, moderate, or conservative.

The other issue is cost. It's hard to believe Congress can pass an effective piece of legislation given the size and scope of what's initially estimated. The preliminary discussions for a health care bill that does more than tinker around the edges is in the range of $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

The identified $300 billion in cuts to Medicare merely scratches the surface. This reality raises an additional question: Will the politics of the issue allow for the fruition universal health care?

Most experts agree universal health care cannot be achieved unless employer benefits are taxed. But to merely tax the rich doesn't reach the requisite dollars for a comprehensive plan. Therefore, the president would also need to tax middle-class workers.

But this goes against one of the president's campaign pledges. It is common knowledge, especially among his opponents, that candidate Obama promised not to raise taxes on the middle class.

Proponents of universal health care should welcome the contrarian questions; it is the only way to avoid being under the illusion their position is immune from its own set of downsides that require difficult choices.

But there is also a bitter irony to the health care debate. Why is it on matters of life we are justifiably cautious, but on matters of death we are much more cavalier?

Imagine if the run up to the Iraq invasion and occupation was carried out in a similar manner to the ongoing health care debate. What if there was a legitimate attempt to have a bipartisan consensus -- as the former Senate Majority Leaders advocated for health care reform -- that did not shy away from asking the tough questions on Iraq?

According to the National Priorities Project, by the end of FY 2009, the cost for Iraq and Afghanistan will exceed $907 billion -- an amount that in less than 10 years rivals the anticipated cost for universal health care. Iraq as a stand-alone is expected to exceed $700 billion this year.

We're bleeding money that leads to carnage and it is hardly mentioned. But many of those who gave bombastic speeches on the Senate floor that jettisoned our young men and women into harm's way are now concerned about the cost to ensure that all Americans have access to health care.

Tough choices notwithstanding, the questions raised about health care come down to political will. Do Congress and the president have the will to make this potentially groundbreaking legislation law?

If so, tough choices can't be avoided. Universal health care will probably not result in an equitable system. And raising taxes only on the rich won't get it done.
The president must go to the American people and courageously explain why he must renege on his campaign pledge -- that the view from the campaign trail as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee is very different from the one in the Oval Office that must transcend political affiliation.

If the president fails to do this, we may have reform, but it will not be universal health care.

To fully appreciate the different emphasis we place on matters of life and death, in the time required to read this column we dedicated roughly $800,000 to our war efforts.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at [e-mail] or visit his website: byronspeaks.com

Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks

Comments

[Endersdragon]

Just curious, if we do decide to pass a single payer system, who controls doctors wages? Controlling CEO wages is generally considered a lot different then controlling doctor wages. We as a society generally feel that doctors can charge whatever they feel for the care they provide, or at least that it shouldn't be controlled by the government. Doctors take 10 years of college, if any one deserves a good wage it is them. Sounds to me it could end up resulting in either the government controlling all wages, or creating a two-tier system. Has either of them ever happened in the past?

Another problem I could see is government controlling treatment options. Being on the autism spectrum I have read articles about this happening before (generally Estee Klar or however you spell her name seems to be quite trustworthy) where the government endorses a certain kind of therapy (ABA for example) and won't fund others (corruption in the government­... never). Estee once even wrote an article about how impossible it was to find anything other then ABA in Canada, so she had to travel to America to get her son the therapy that seemed to have the most effect on him... is it just me or would this be a bad thing?

[research]

We don't have to control wages, we control what we pay for a given operation, just like the insurance companies do now.

[Endersdragon]

So we decide to put all those decisions in one parties (as in group of people not as in political partys) control? I am not sure I like that very much, even worse when it comes to treatment options.

[research]

Just tax the top .1% more, they have all the money.

[JEP57]

We have a capitalist system in this country. The people and businesses at "the top" create the wealth that allows them to employ millions of Americans. If their profits go down by way of new taxes, they will make up for it by layoffs or a lack of expansion, or businesses that are just making it might fold, especially in a shaky economy. You can only redistribute other people's money so much before something gives. Even if I was the most generous person around, if I was a CEO in a big company, I would be forced to cut back to make up for new taxes. It's the way it works.

[research]

BS derivatives traders create no wealth.

[research]

You say this in front of the largest transfer of wealth in human history from the people to the the bankers. Pathetic.

[Endersdragon]

The top .1% of this country don't make near enough to take care of our debt, much less give us this kindof surplus.

[research]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

top 1% made 22% of all income in 2006.

in the last 2 years the top few hundred people have raked in billions.

[dtotire]

I am covered by the Federal Health Employees Benefit Plan and I have excellent coverage. I selected the BC/BS Standard Family policy with a monthly premium of $356.59 which is affordable for me. I think everyone should have access to a similar plan, including those who are self-employed. This would rquire additional taxes, which I do not object to. I would suggest a combination of a value-added tax plus a surtax on income taxes, equally divided. In the FEHB, there are over a dozen insurance companies and HMO's that an individual can choose from. For BC/BS premium plan, the monthly rates are $356.59 for a family, and $152.06 for a single person. For their basic plan, corresponding rates are $216.48 and $92.44. The rates charged by other carriers are similar. These charges are all affordable for someone who is working. This is a plan that would be acceptable to everyone, but additional taxes would be required. This would reduce the cost now paid by employers, and well as state and local governments.

[jill2468]

Thats right, lets put a value added tax on everything anyone buys. Rich or poor. The rich will contibute more because the buy more expensive stuff. The poor will contribute less because they by cheeper stuff. But, let us not do some kind of give back in the form of a tax refund for anyone. this way, everyone pays something. EVERYONE. There I said it. I really don't want a value added or any other new tax. I am Taxed Enough Already and think I will go to a party.

[gbollinger88]

Every Western country but our own can provide better health care insurance for ALL its citizens for far less per person than the US pays now. If I could trade my bloated insurance premium ($2500/month) for a reasonable tax increase, that would be a good thing. The view that the we should pay any health care premium just to avoid higher taxes is just WAY too simple minded.

[jmpurser]

All of these arguments assume that someone who wants a "public option" is for universal coverage. There is no real support for that assumption. If the goal of Universal coverage was important then Single Payer is the only system that would be under discussion in Congress.

We began with a goal of not hurting the insurance industry. The same industry that kills thousands of Americans for corporate profits every year and has done so for decades. Everything that has followed form there supports this single goal.

Universal coverage, in the highly unlikely event we get it, will be hideously expensive and will require either a massive increase in the debt (our favorite funding method for 30 years) or stiff tax increases. You have to figure that a congress that won't even try to keep the middle class alive will have no trouble hitting them with additional taxes so don't expect the rich to get tagged to pay for this.

All because President Obama took Universal Single Payer Health Insurance run by the government off the table. With that act of betrayal the rest became inevitable.

[kimleehan]

Read my lips, no new taxes.

[Sundialsvc4]

The President can sign what the Congress gives him. No less and no more. And this Congress is frighteningly corrupt... as have been so many others before.

We don't want to put the Federal Government into the insurance business..­. and it doesn't have to be. What we do want is for every person to be able to GET medical care, timely, if only so they don't infect the rest of us. There must be no "uninsured motorists.­"

A government is uniquely capable of doing that, because it alone defines the parameters under which businesses must operate. It levies taxes, but also can grant tax incentives. It can create compelling motivations to do the right things.

[JohnIII]

Considering the Prez promised everyone everything on the campaign trail, it will be inevitable for him not to go back on his word.

[Whitley2009]

I would like to hear some practical economic experts on this blog discuss how single-pay health insurance premiums taken from our pay checks are not taxes. Further, that money will be paid back into the economy to physicians, pharmacists, health facilities, pharmaceutical companies, etc. where it will churn throughout the economy. The Republicans act as if their BigBusiness people will be the only donors of a tax for single pay health care. Throughout the European countries with such plans, the citizens are happy to pay these premiums for the excellent care they receive. It is NOT a socialist plan or practice, it is a rather clear insurance premium and pay program. I would appreciate hearing some comments from you economics whiz-kids on this blog.

[BitterClinger15301]

I'd prefer not to have either (government controlled health care or higher taxes), thanks.

[clearthinker2008]

Just wait...

[jill2468]

agree

[jill2468]

i agree with biller

[Burnsey]

I would not be surprised in the slightest if President Obama forgoes the Public Option single payer system all together. He was opposed to this option from the very start of his campaign and only adopted the idea when trying to defeat Senator Clinton during the primaries.

Just look back at the debate footage on Healthcare and you will be reminded that this plan was not a plan he endorsed. Just as with FISA the President said one thing, and will do another. He was against FISA during most of the Electoral process, yet ended up voting for it in the end.

I was hoping that this President was a new type of politician, the type who did what he said he would do. But alas, politics always wins out, and the American people always loose.

[clearthinker2008]

Burnsey, single payer and public option isn't the same thing. We will get a public option but single payer isn't going to happen in our lifetime.

[jill2468]

Policies aside. We don't have to lose. It is time to stand up and tell the Congress and the President you are dis-satisfied with what and how they are doing business. That we do not want business as usual in Washington anymore. I invite you to the March on Washington on September 12 to let the people who work for YOU, that you are unhappy and will work to get them fired, as they All should be.

[DUSAA-1775]

Obama may need to break a campaign promise??? that is a silly thing to say. .. Closing Gitmo, getting out of Iraq, no lobbyists in his administration. Please let me know when he DOES NOT break a campaign promise.

[Disdain]

How can you effectively talk about health care reform without tackling the underlying causes of it such as malpractice insurance and associated costs, the advances in technology that prolong life but ultimately cost patients millions toward the end, administrative waste, corruption etc. Throwing more money at it without addressing these issues will get us back to the same problem in ten years with trillions of dollars in debt added to the mix.

[DallasMike]

When are people going to wake up and realize that anything the Gov't tries to run ends in total disaster.

[Disdain]

Never. The government has proven with SSI and Medicare and Medicaid that it can not yet we expect that it's going to miraculously create and run an effective healthcare system for 300 Million Americans.

[noaxe397]

Where were Republicans and their concern for costs when they passed Medicare Part D drug plan a few years ago? An expansion of the social safety net so large the GOP had to threaten to fire the government actuary who testified on the costs unless he lied about them. And that was a Republican president and a republican controlled congess.

Talk about Alice-in-w­onderland. This is where DEMS fail miserably: in framing debate in terms advantageous to their intended goals.

The biggest part of Obama's stimulus was the LARGEST middle class tax cut in US history, without a SINGLE republican vote, but that is now forgotten and everyone is being told "tax increases," and that is how Obama will be remembered. Reagan cut taxes AND he raised them in 6 of the 8 years he was president, but GOP superior framing never lets anyone remember the tax increases.
As stated above, biggest growth in social welfare program since LBJ was done by complete Republican control, but Dems are described as party of big government.
Half the Republicans in Congress voted for the largest tax rate increase in US history (on AIG bonuses from 35%-90%.) But we are worried Obama may have to raise taxes.

Dems are too busy trying to govern to effectively communicate with the people on what they want to do and so lose control of the debate and are labeled/caricatured as something they are not.

Solution: Repeal the REAGAN tax cuts.

[BitterClinger15301]

You'll notice that the Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress in 2006, and the White House in 2008. Their abandonment of fiscal conservatism caused a substantial portion of the conservative base to abandon them.

But the base is now united in opposition to Obama's rapid expansion of government. His honeymoon will soon be over. Expect big changes in 2010.

[DallasMike]

Yea thats what we need, we need to go back to the tax policies of the Carter yrs because they were such a great time of prosperity in this country.

[noaxe397]

They were also the tax policies of the Nixon years and the Johnson years and the Kennedy years and the Eisenhower years and the Truman years and the Roosevelt years and the. . . . you get the idea. And we were the most prosperous nation in the world during all of those years with those tax rates because it took money away from people who would use it to do eaxactly what they did during the Reagan/Bush years.

[Conservador-Rebelde]

Two things:

1) Whether or not he does anything with health-care, taxes are going up.

2) "Can there be a public plan that competes directly with the existing private companies?" A better question is can the existing companies compete with a government run program?

[DallasMike]

You question should be can private plans compete with the public?
Let’s bring in something that has been missing in Washington for many yrs now. COMMON SENSE.
If you are an employer and you have to either lay off employees or cut your employee health care to save costs which option do you think most employers going to choose? Either way you slice it and no matter how you try to spin it there will be no alternative to Gov’t health care because employers will opt out of providing their workers health care and force people to go with the Gov’t option. So when Obama says there will be competition between Gov’t and private health care don’t believe it.